Jesus Is an Anarchist

James Redford

2. The
Golden Rule Unavoidably Results in Anarchism

Jesus commanded us
that in all things we are to treat others as we would want others to treat
us. Thus:

Matthew 5:17-18: "Do
not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come
to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law
till all is fulfilled."

Matthew 7:12: [...]
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this
is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

By saying that this
commandment is "the Law and the Prophets" Jesus is saying that by
following this one commandment that one is thereby fulfilling the Law of
Moses and the principles of the Prophets – in other words Jesus is saying
that it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the proper ethic of
social relations. This ultimate social ethic which Jesus commanded
everyone to follow is commonly known as the Golden Rule.

But if indeed Jesus
actually meant what He said when He spoke these words – and He most
certainly did – then this alone is more than enough to prove that Jesus is
of necessity an anarchist, and not just any kind of anarchist, but a
libertarian, free-market anarchist in particular.

The reason this would
necessarily have to be the case is because it is impossible for any actual
government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in theory, let alone
in practice. All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule,
otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else
instead.

To understand why this
is unalterably true, one must first have a clear and precise understanding
of just what a "government" is and just what it is not, i.e., the
distinguishing characteristics of Government which differentiates it from
all other things that are not Governments.

(When the word is used
in the sense above) Government (i.e., a State) is that organization in
society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at
maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate control of the law
(i.e., on the courts and police, etc.) – this is a feature of all
Governments; as well, historically speaking it has always been the case
that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its
revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but
by coercion.

It is here where we
find why it is quite impossible for any government to actually abide by
Jesus's ultimate commandment. The reason quite simply is because all
governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to
them.

That is, all
governments, in order to be a government, must enforce a coercive monopoly
on ultimate control of the law – this is a necessary feature of all
governments. All governments set up courts and enforce control over
ultimate judicial decision, while outlawing others from engaging in the
same practice.

Thus, for example, if
a group of people become dissatisfied with the judicial services that the
government is providing and decide to set up shop offering their own
private arbitration and protection services on the market without seeking
the permission of the government to do so then the government will attack
these people and put an end to their competitive judicial services, and
would thereby enforce its monopoly on ultimate control over the law.

If the government
failed to enforce its monopoly on ultimate control over the law then it
would cease to be a government, but would instead become just another
private protection agency offering its services on a competitive market.

The above scenario
leaves out something extremely vital though, as it merely assumes that
this government in question somehow obtains its revenue by voluntary
contribution and not by coercion. Yet all actual governments throughout
history have obtained their revenue not by voluntary contribution or
payment for contracted services but by coercion.

Thus all governments
throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they
call "taxes," yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their
subjects to steal from each other or from the government.

Thus here again in
taxes we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what
they outlaw their subjects to do to them. I say "historically" because
while although all governments throughout history have found it necessary
to fund their operations through theft and extortion, it is not
necessarily the case that all governments in theory must be supported by
taxes: one could imagine that most people in a certain society simply
voluntarily donate their money to fund a government, as unlikely as that
possibility is in practice.

So while although a
monopoly on ultimate control of the law is a logical necessity of all
governments, taxes are not – taxes have simply been a practical necessity
throughout all of history in order for governments to function.

And so we find that
all governments must of necessity continuously violate Jesus's ultimate
social commandment even to simply exist. The principle which all
governments are founded upon and follow may properly be termed the "Luciferian
Principle."

This logically
follows, because to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of
the Golden Rule: i.e., rather than doing to others what you would want
others to do to you, you would instead be doing to others what you do not
want others to do to you.

Hence, if we may term
the Golden Rule the "Christ Principle," or otherwise the "Christian
Principle," then it certainly follows that the opposite of this principle
would properly be termed the "Luciferian Principle": which is none other
than doing to others what you do not want others to do to you.

It is for this reason
that anyone that takes Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment seriously must
of necessity advocate the abolition of all Earthly governments wherever
and whenever they may exist, as governments are necessarily incompatible
with Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment and diametrically opposed to it.
In passing, it's important for me to distinguish "Earthly governments"
from what is sometimes called the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of
Christ."

In the above
discussion I have been analyzing governments as they are operated by men
here on Earth – but as I will show, the "Kingdom" which Christ is to
establish on Earth will be the functional and operational opposite of any
kingdom which has ever existed on Earth before, i.e., it won't actually be
a government in the sense in which I defined above and will in fact be
perfectly consistent with the Golden Rule.

Above I also stated
that Jesus's commandment of the Golden Rule not only proves that He is an
anarchist, but also necessarily a libertarian, or free market, anarchist
to be specific. The reason that this is so is because an anarchist is
simply someone who desires no government to exist: only this and nothing
more.

Thus, one could desire
no government to exist and yet still feel that it is alright to, say, slap
people upside the head for no reason. Yet someone who follows the Golden
Rule must not do to others what they do not want others to do to them –
this necessarily means that one must respect the autonomy of other
people's person and their just property: which unavoidably leads to not
just anarchism, as was demonstrated above, but also to the free-market,
voluntarist, libertarian order.

The rigorous proof of
this is that everyone, by definition, objects to others aggressing against
what they regard as their own property. If such were not the case then, by
definition, such action would not be an aggression but a voluntary action.

But ultimately all
just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary transactions
(which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading
of unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such resources were
expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his heir(s) can no
longer be identified or are deceased, where the first non-aggressor
possesses the resource (which can then be considered another form of
homesteading).

Thus, for anyone to
come into possession of property which either was not homesteaded by
themselves or which was not obtained by a voluntary transaction would
thereby be violating the Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they
are obtaining a good by involuntary means from another who can trace their
possession of the resource either to direct homesteading or through
voluntary transactions leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of
the two types given above).

Yet, by definition,
this aggressor would not want others to take his property against his will
which he had come into possession of by voluntary means – and surely
everyone possesses such property, even if it is just their own body.

Hence, if Jesus was
serious about the Golden Rule – and He most certainly was – then it
necessarily means that He is a consistent libertarian, as the Golden Rule
as a political ethic is completely congruent with the libertarian
Non-Aggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group of people may
initiate the use of force against another, or threaten to initiate force
against another.